Hi Bob, If you've not looked at
http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
maybe now would be a good time.
Of course it is quite true that if you make 100 watts into a given impedance, it doesn't matter what made the power, the current and voltage will be the same.
Where things get interesting is when you have an amplifier that makes constant power, as opposed to constant voltage. What happens here is that as the load varies, the current and voltage both change with it to that effect. This is what I was referring to in my posts above.
It is **not** true that all speakers are "voltage" driven, in fact before the Voltage Paradigm was developed, tubes (and often zero feedback tubes) were the only game in town. Designers had to accommodate constant power so to get flat response; they had to be a little more careful.
Some examples of where constant voltage is not so helpful:
ESLs- Constant Voltage amplifiers have trouble making bass while too bright for comfortable listening due to the impedance curves typical of ESLs: high impedance in the bass, almost none in the highs. You need constant power to make that sound right.
Full-range drivers/horns- Most high efficiency speakers have tighter voice coil gaps (hence their cost) which creates higher reactivity. The reverse EMF thus generated can wreck havoc upon an amplifier with lots of negative feedback. The result is excess harshness (ringing) at high frequencies; the main source of many listeners opinion that horns are brash, honky and the like.
Its not difficult to choose a speaker for such an amplifier with a high output impedance (also known as a 'current source' amplifier to use Voltage Paradigm vernacular). All you have to do is look at the intention of the designer. Some examples: Merlins, Sound Lab, most horns (except Avantgardes), Lowthers, Fostex, PHY and the like, The original AR-1, Audiokinesis, Coincident Technology, Rogers LS3/5A, headphones, Magnepan, Reference 3A Loudspeakers, to name a few.
If the impedance curve operates independently of resonance, you can count on the speaker being a Power Paradigm device rather than Voltage Paradigm. Nearly all planars are Power Paradigm devices. Of course, a smooth impedance curve makes the speaker available to both camps- Avalon is a good example of that.
The two paradigms are responsible for a lot of debate in audio- tubes vs transistors, objectivist vs subjectivist...
What is really going on is that the Power Paradigm nowadays operates around the idea of the rules of human hearing, where the Voltage Paradigm operates around the concept of bench measurement. I hope it is obvious that understanding the rules of these two paradigms creates also a means for using transistors in a musical way- Pass 1st Watt amps and Ridley Audio are good but rare examples.
I am of the opinion that when it is possible to quantify the right measurements on the bench, such as the amount of odd-ordered content generated with a dynamically changing waveform, then a new and encompassing paradigm will emerge. Until then, we are stuck with two schools in competition- and the continuing need to match equipment properly and audition it at home.
http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
maybe now would be a good time.
Of course it is quite true that if you make 100 watts into a given impedance, it doesn't matter what made the power, the current and voltage will be the same.
Where things get interesting is when you have an amplifier that makes constant power, as opposed to constant voltage. What happens here is that as the load varies, the current and voltage both change with it to that effect. This is what I was referring to in my posts above.
It is **not** true that all speakers are "voltage" driven, in fact before the Voltage Paradigm was developed, tubes (and often zero feedback tubes) were the only game in town. Designers had to accommodate constant power so to get flat response; they had to be a little more careful.
Some examples of where constant voltage is not so helpful:
ESLs- Constant Voltage amplifiers have trouble making bass while too bright for comfortable listening due to the impedance curves typical of ESLs: high impedance in the bass, almost none in the highs. You need constant power to make that sound right.
Full-range drivers/horns- Most high efficiency speakers have tighter voice coil gaps (hence their cost) which creates higher reactivity. The reverse EMF thus generated can wreck havoc upon an amplifier with lots of negative feedback. The result is excess harshness (ringing) at high frequencies; the main source of many listeners opinion that horns are brash, honky and the like.
Its not difficult to choose a speaker for such an amplifier with a high output impedance (also known as a 'current source' amplifier to use Voltage Paradigm vernacular). All you have to do is look at the intention of the designer. Some examples: Merlins, Sound Lab, most horns (except Avantgardes), Lowthers, Fostex, PHY and the like, The original AR-1, Audiokinesis, Coincident Technology, Rogers LS3/5A, headphones, Magnepan, Reference 3A Loudspeakers, to name a few.
If the impedance curve operates independently of resonance, you can count on the speaker being a Power Paradigm device rather than Voltage Paradigm. Nearly all planars are Power Paradigm devices. Of course, a smooth impedance curve makes the speaker available to both camps- Avalon is a good example of that.
The two paradigms are responsible for a lot of debate in audio- tubes vs transistors, objectivist vs subjectivist...
What is really going on is that the Power Paradigm nowadays operates around the idea of the rules of human hearing, where the Voltage Paradigm operates around the concept of bench measurement. I hope it is obvious that understanding the rules of these two paradigms creates also a means for using transistors in a musical way- Pass 1st Watt amps and Ridley Audio are good but rare examples.
I am of the opinion that when it is possible to quantify the right measurements on the bench, such as the amount of odd-ordered content generated with a dynamically changing waveform, then a new and encompassing paradigm will emerge. Until then, we are stuck with two schools in competition- and the continuing need to match equipment properly and audition it at home.